Hi all,
Here are some responses to the particular questions that were raised.
I officially volunteer to maintain the picoChip port.
While the port doesn't currently use DejaGNU, I will fix this.
Consequently, I will be able to feed the results back to the test
results mailing list. I've bough
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> I see that I reviewed it with two days back then. Not everything I
>> could/can approve as web pages maintainer (because it looks like
>> policy changes), but I see that about half of the changes I only
>> had minor editorial comments on.
>>
>> Would yo
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suggest you to double check also the list present in this mail:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg01625.html
>>
>> This was never publically approved, but it reflects views of many GCC
>> maintainers. Surely it does not hurt to follow th
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I suggest you to double check also the list present in this mail:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg01625.html
>
> This was never publically approved, but it reflects views of many GCC
> maintainers. Surely it does not hurt to follow those g
On 12 Sep 2005, Steven Bosscher gibbered uncontrollably:
> I think people should object. What is the point in having a free
> software compiler if e.g. users can't use a complete free toolchain;
> or gcc developers not being able to test changes when some patch
> needs changes in every port.
Well
On Sep 12, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Daniel Towner wrote:
I would now like to formally contribute this port.
The way to do that is to send an email to gcc-patches, with the
port. :-) You can also volunteer to maintain the port at the same
time, if you so choose.
Original Message
>From: David Edelsohn
>Sent: 12 September 2005 19:00
> A similar issue was raised last Spring and discussed by the GCC
> Steering Committee. Mark Mitchell summarized the response, including
> Richard Stallman's comment:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg0013
A similar issue was raised last Spring and discussed by the GCC
Steering Committee. Mark Mitchell summarized the response, including
Richard Stallman's comment:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg00134.html
There is no need to resurrect that debate.
David
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The linker and assembler used by the port are proprietary, and can't
>>> be made publicly available at this point. The port will have to be
>>> assembler output only.
>>
>> I suppose this means that nobody but you will ever be able to run/test
your
>>
Daniel Towner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The linker and assembler used by the port are proprietary, and can't
> > be made publicly available at this point. The port will have to be
> > assembler output only.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:55:28PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I suppose this means
Original Message
>From: Steven Bosscher
>Sent: 12 September 2005 18:01
> On Monday 12 September 2005 18:55, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Daniel Towner wrote:
>>> The linker and assembler used by the port are proprietary, and can't
>>> be made publicly available at this point. The port will hav
On Monday 12 September 2005 18:55, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Daniel Towner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The linker and assembler used by the port are proprietary, and can't
> > be made publicly available at this point. The port will have to be
> > assembler output only.
>
> I suppose this means that
Daniel Towner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The linker and assembler used by the port are proprietary, and can't
> be made publicly available at this point. The port will have to be
> assembler output only.
I suppose this means that nobody but you will ever be able to run/test your
backend. If you
> Daniel Towner writes:
Daniel> Assuming that my port doesn't require a patch in sched-deps.c, can I
Daniel> submit this port to gcc in time for the 4.1 branch, or must I wait
Daniel> until afterwards? If I was allowed to submit before the branch, what
Daniel> would the deadline be?
G
14 matches
Mail list logo
